D&D 5E What do you want out of crafting rules?

[DND_Reborn]

Very interesting and quite a monumental task. I think something like this would find a decent market on teh DMsGuild. I do have on suggestion:
It is stated that failing by 5 or more ruins the cloak. I think that seems a bit harsh, conversely, I don't see a drawback for simply failing. If you want degrees of failure, maybe something like this:

• Failed check: increase time required by 50% (+25 days in this case)
• Failed check by 5-9: double time & 2x cost (+50 days & +2000gp)
• Fail by 10 or more: ruined

Thus, on a failure it can be recovered, but it may not be worth it (financially and time) to do so. It gives the player some agency and if you want to through in additional check, it is a gamble too.

Thanks. Good suggestions, I'll definitely consider something along those lines. If I do, I can bump up the DCs for many items because I wanted a consequence, but not necessarily "ruining" the item each time. Those are good alternatives for failure.

Yes, it is quite the task, and I have it underway but a LONG way to go. I even thought about trying to assemble a team for it and launch a kickstarter fund so I could work on it and my other projects full-time, but it would be quite a commitment so I am still debating it.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

How about if each Tool's proficiency used a type of generic material, like the 4e rituals used?

ex: cleric rituals required a Religion roll, and the expenditure of X gold worth of Sacred Incense to be completed.

The same logic could be applied in 5e's crafting, instead of tracking each type of precise metal and their quantity:

ex: Making a sword requires a roll of Smith's Tools and the expenditure of 15 gp worth of Metallic Dust.

So when the Players loot the lost forge of Wave Echo Cave, instead of gathering 10 x steel ingots worth 10 gp, 1 mithril ingot worth 100 gp etc, the DM instead award 200 gp worth of Metallic Dust (or whatever the name).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Some people complain about 5e’s crafting rules. Others think it’s just fine. What do you want out of them?

I only want two thing from crafting rules:

1) Enough simplicity that they don't get in the way of the game, or hold things up endlessly.

Quite a lot of the suggestions in this thread are the precise opposite of this, and will add lots of time and math to the game for no real gain or interest.

2) Flavour - especially when crafting magic items. Flavour is so much more important than finickity rules.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, it is quite the task, and I have it underway but a LONG way to go. I even thought about trying to assemble a team for it and launch a kickstarter fund so I could work on it and my other projects full-time, but it would be quite a commitment so I am still debating it.

If you are interested in putting it up on DMs Guild, you might try breaking it up into pieces instead of doing it all at once. So do A-F (or whatever) and put it up on the guild. Create some buzz and income to fund hiring people to help produce the rest. Then you release a compiled version at the end. Then a sequel that includes all the magic items that are not in the DMsGuild.

 

[dave2008]

Thanks. Good suggestions, I'll definitely consider something along those lines. If I do, I can bump up the DCs for many items because I wanted a consequence, but not necessarily "ruining" the item each time. Those are good alternatives for failure.

Another "failure" option could be you craft a lesser version. For the displacer cloak maybe it has a limited number of charges and after they are used up the cloak doesn't work; unless you spend more time and money to recharge it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Here is an example of what I am working on:
View attachment 133527
I'm not sure if this is what many people want (I haven't had time to read through the thread), I am really doing it for my own groups and my goal is to do all the magic items in the DMG.

I think this is the right general direction but I have some criticisms, if you don't mind.

I think it's a bit too standardized in terms of requirements, it's hard to believe every cloak of that nature would be made the exact same way, but if you presented it more as "This is one wizard's blueprint for how she made Displacer Beast cloak", and suggest that the DM feel free to mix it up a bit. An "alternative ingredients" bit might be nice, even you didn't detail how they were used.

I'd also drop the ability checks entirely, because all you're doing is adding a significant chance than an interesting process that effort was put into gets thrown away. And the net effect of that will be one of two things:

1) The players just give up on this stuff. A lot of players will be literally disgusted if they put that much effort in, and a couple of really bad d20 rolls, which are highly random, note, ruined all that effort. I do mean disgusted. People underestimate how big this kind of thing feels to players, especially in the abstract.

2) The players will massively oversupply themselves on the hope that at least one of the attempts succeeds. And then you have a bad situation where it may well be that they get enough for, say 3-5 cloaks, and succeed in making 3-5 cloaks. Suddenly the ENTIRE PARTY has Displacer Beast cloaks. But you're encouraging this situation strongly by including a total failure chance.

Also generally speaking real craftspeople don't just... "fail" at stuff. Like, if I paint a painting, I'm not just going to set it on fire or rip the canvas or whatever. If my mum is making a pair of trousers, she's not just going to cut them in half or the like! If you actually have the proficiency, the failure chance should probably be zero - rolling should be for amateurs. (There are some examples where it does happen - but they're pretty rare and usually either involve unusual materials in a sense beyond this, primadonnas/artistes, or most often - people who aren't actually that skilled that they'd be considered "proficient").

Now I see you're using DC 10 to try and mitigate this a bit. That's cool but all it does is mean that there's a very small chance that the failure will happen, which doesn't really make it interesting or engaging, and I think removing it entirely and making the process more narrative (or about finding people with rare and specialized skills, and/or costing TIME instead, or money, or both on failure would be much more effective. The process itself is what makes it interesting, not any "failure chance".

 

[dave2008]

I'd also drop the ability checks entirely, because all you're doing is adding a significant chance than an interesting process that effort was put into gets thrown away. And the net effect of that will be one of two things:

1) The players just give up on this stuff. A lot of players will be literally disgusted if they put that much effort in, and a couple of really bad d20 rolls, which are highly random, note, ruined all that effort. I do mean disgusted. People underestimate how big this kind of thing feels to players, especially in the abstract.

2) The players will massively oversupply themselves on the hope that at least one of the attempts succeeds. And then you have a bad situation where it may well be that they get enough for, say 3-5 cloaks, and succeed in making 3-5 cloaks. Suddenly the ENTIRE PARTY has Displacer Beast cloaks. But you're encouraging this situation strongly by including a total failure chance.

Also generally speaking real craftspeople don't just... "fail" at stuff. Like, if I paint a painting, I'm not just going to set it on fire or rip the canvas or whatever. If my mum is making a pair of trousers, she's not just going to cut them in half or the like! If you actually have the proficiency, the failure chance should probably be zero - rolling should be for amateurs.

Now I see you're using DC 10 to try and mitigate this a bit. That's cool but all it does is mean that there's a very small chance that the failure will happen, which doesn't really make it interesting or engaging, and I think removing it entirely and making the process more narrative (or about finding people with rare and specialized skills, and/or costing TIME instead, or money, or both on failure would be much more effective. The process itself is what makes it interesting, not any "failure chance".

I wouldn't drop the checks, but I recommended degrees of failure a few posts above yours: #150, which could include a lesser version. I think that could address some of your concerns.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I wouldn't drop the checks, but I recommended degrees of failure a few posts above yours: #150, which could include a lesser version. I think that could address some of your concerns.

I don't see any actual upside to the checks existing. I think they're there because some people think everything has to involve checks, rather than because they serve a real purpose. Especially given there's a narrative way the cloak can get ruined too.

I mean, players will pretty much always have Advantage thanks to the Help rules (which makes the whole "leatherworking tools" thing irrelevant). The writer should avoid the temptation to make a special exception to that rule - it would serve no purpose but aggravation. Instead, embrace preparedness. If the players have proficiency in everything involved, and already have instructions on how to make the cloak, I don't think there should be checks at all. If they're not proficient, then I see a point to the checks, because they're trying to do something they don't really know how to.

What should be focused on is obtaining the materials - i.e. actual adventuring - and the flavour and magical-ness of turning them into the cloak, not swearing loudly because you failed an Arcana check by 1 point.

 

[The Green Hermit]

Here is an example of what I am working on:
View attachment 133527
I'm not sure if this is what many people want (I haven't had time to read through the thread), I am really doing it for my own groups and my goal is to do all the magic items in the DMG.

I like it. The only thing I would change would be to have tool proficiency negate the need for a DC check for tanning and weaving. Am I right in assuming both the tanning and the weaving processes take 10 days each?

Also, I'm sure this would get caught before publishing, but "pestil" should be "pestle," unless there is a difference between British and American spelling.

 

[Vael]

I think if a PC is making checks, it should be more, can they successfully get fire crystal used to infuse the Wand of Fireballs that they're making, not a check to actually make the Wand of Fireballs. Acquisition of the ingredients and formulae is the adventuring part, not the actual forging or following the formula.